If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   No longer newsflash worthy, and that's a good thing: Courts strike down Michigan's ban on gay marriage   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 106
    More: Cool, Mich, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal bench, Ingham County, April DeBoer, Elections in 2004, Michigan Constitution  
•       •       •

1693 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 7:38 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 07:39:47 PM
Woot
 
2014-03-21 07:40:34 PM
Good.
 
2014-03-21 07:41:01 PM
What's the count on states that still have bans now?
 
2014-03-21 07:41:52 PM
About friggin' time.
 
2014-03-21 07:42:05 PM

Semantic Warrior: What's the count on states that still have bans now?


Falling daily.
 
2014-03-21 07:43:25 PM
 
2014-03-21 07:43:25 PM
...aaaaand welcome to the 21st century Michigan.
 
2014-03-21 07:43:59 PM

elkboy: Woot


Woot!
 
2014-03-21 07:44:38 PM
The court had some strong feelings regarding the state's expert witnesses:

"The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."AND  "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks's testimony is largely unbelievable."

I wonder if you could put that on a resume. "My testimony was found 'entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration' in Federal Court."  Some GOP Senator would hire that guy in a heartbeat.
 
2014-03-21 07:44:46 PM
Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.
 
2014-03-21 07:45:14 PM
next up: the Tenth Circuit
 
2014-03-21 07:46:20 PM
 
2014-03-21 07:46:59 PM
BRB, bathing in Freeper tears.
 
2014-03-21 07:47:47 PM
What's good for the goose is good for the Michigander?
 
2014-03-21 07:48:02 PM

gopher321: ...aaaaand welcome to the 21st century Michigan.


Hey, were trying.
 
2014-03-21 07:51:01 PM

GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.


www.slate.com

I'm not saying this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, but this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.

NTTAWWT, of course.
 
2014-03-21 07:51:34 PM
It has been my observation during my lifetime that courts have generally demonstrated gender bias against males, in terms of alimony and child support. But how can a court discriminate when BOTH 'spouses' are male or neither 'spouse' is male?
 
2014-03-21 07:54:53 PM
//||||||||||||||
 
2014-03-21 07:55:43 PM

dv-ous: GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

I'm not saying this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, but this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.

NTTAWWT, of course.


Okay, now that I've read the article...

WTF? So, they admitted on the stand that their research was full of holes and that they had biases? Dafuq?

Way to throw the game, conservatives. Nice job.
 
2014-03-21 07:55:43 PM

dv-ous: GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

I'm not saying this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, but this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.

NTTAWWT, of course.


I'll bet he fires up the old "porn-machine" and furiously mastur-hates to videos where men meet using wide stances.
 
2014-03-21 07:55:51 PM
img.fark.net

/For it.
//Of course, now that you've established a principle that judges CAN overturn shiat like this, imagine how conservative justices can use the principle.  President Bachmann and a court of Scalia's.  -   http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-s p ectrum-quiz/
 
2014-03-21 08:03:56 PM
Nicely done headline subs.


/yay Michigan!
 
2014-03-21 08:04:10 PM
I am stunned at how easily those who claim deep religious faith will be so dishonest in attempts to force others to adhere to their beliefs. Am I interpreting it too literally, or is this exactly what is meant by "bearing false witness"?
 
2014-03-21 08:06:07 PM
I'm a bit sad about this because freerepublic no longer has meltdowns on this
 
2014-03-21 08:11:57 PM
Hollywood thinks it's aokay so WTF
 
2014-03-21 08:14:06 PM
If only Fred Phelps had lived long enough to see this.
 
2014-03-21 08:14:17 PM
"This decision ... mistakenly proposes that marriage is an emotional arrangement that can simply be redefined to accommodate the dictates of culture and the wants of adults," seven bishops said.


But hasn't marriage historically been defined and redefined for those exact reasons?

/Bride prices? Dowry? Chattel?
//Anyone? Anyone?
///Bueller?
 
2014-03-21 08:14:47 PM
FTFA:  "the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
Friedman, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, wasn't moved."


Bahahaha!

Even more sweet and delicious those conservative tears will be.
 
2014-03-21 08:19:05 PM

dv-ous: GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

I'm not saying this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, but this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.

NTTAWWT, of course.


We'll see him on gayhomophobe.com within the next few months.
 
2014-03-21 08:19:43 PM
Democracy is coming to the USA.
 
2014-03-21 08:22:30 PM

GWSuperfan: The court had some strong feelings regarding the state's expert witnesses:

"The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."AND  "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks's testimony is largely unbelievable."

I wonder if you could put that on a resume. "My testimony was found 'entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration' in Federal Court."  Some GOP Senator would hire that guy in a heartbeat.


A friend of mine, who is an expert witness for domestic assult cases told me that if her testimony was ever found to be unreliable, she'd never be hired again as an expert witness and would easily lose her job with the non-profit she works for.

That said, the prosecution in this case probably knew exactly what these expert witnesses were going to testify, knew how irrelevant it was, and decided to agree to give them expert status for this case so that the defense could dig their own hole deeper and deeper.
 
2014-03-21 08:24:43 PM

dv-ous: GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.


Do you mean that that is the face of a man who likes to suck dick ?
 
2014-03-21 08:26:45 PM

Lekneh: GWSuperfan: The court had some strong feelings regarding the state's expert witnesses:

"The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."AND  "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks's testimony is largely unbelievable."

I wonder if you could put that on a resume. "My testimony was found 'entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration' in Federal Court."  Some GOP Senator would hire that guy in a heartbeat.

A friend of mine, who is an expert witness for domestic assult cases told me that if her testimony was ever found to be unreliable, she'd never be hired again as an expert witness and would easily lose her job with the non-profit she works for.

That said, the prosecution in this case probably knew exactly what these expert witnesses were going to testify, knew how irrelevant it was, and decided to agree to give them expert status for this case so that the defense could dig their own hole deeper and deeper.


I hear George Rekers  isn't very busy these days.  ;)
 
2014-03-21 08:36:54 PM
Would I be correct in asserting that these bans have only accelerated that which they were designed to prevent?

Or is that too good to be true?
 
2014-03-21 08:38:45 PM

Reverend J: dv-ous: GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

I'm not saying this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, but this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.

NTTAWWT, of course.

We'll see him on gayhomophobe.com within the next few months.


Oh my god, that's a thing?

Awesomesauce!
 
2014-03-21 08:52:50 PM
Gay divorces will be fabulous
 
2014-03-21 08:57:45 PM
I think it's stupid to ban gay marriage anywhere. I can't believe this is still an issue.
 
2014-03-21 08:58:07 PM
Turtle Farkers Unite!
 
2014-03-21 09:00:04 PM

OccamsWhiskers: I am stunned at how easily those who claim deep religious faith will be so dishonest in attempts to force others to adhere to their beliefs. Am I interpreting it too literally, or is this exactly what is meant by "bearing false witness"?


I'm not.

 (CSB: I have to tolerate several Fundamentalist "Christians" at my workplace; one of whom thinks that Christianity should be the the only* religion in the United States...and I'm in in the western part of Oregon, supposedly one of the most tolerant & liberal areas in the Nation...)

*in other words, Christian dominionism .
 
2014-03-21 09:05:03 PM
Their biggest argument against gay marriage was the "will of the people".

...of course, had gay marriage been approved by the voters, they'd be arguing that that was a Soros-funded, ACORN-backed plot to subvert the "will of the people".
 
2014-03-21 09:05:45 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Would I be correct in asserting that these bans have only accelerated that which they were designed to prevent?

Or is that too good to be true?


It isn't too good to be true.  Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it.  His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans."  He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.
 
2014-03-21 09:06:14 PM

svanmeter: It has been my observation during my lifetime that courts have generally demonstrated gender bias against males, in terms of alimony and child support. But how can a court discriminate when BOTH 'spouses' are male or neither 'spouse' is male?


It will be interesting if precedent gets set regarding things like custody and alimony when both spouses are of the same sex.  Will such precedent affect same sex adjudications?  The world wonders.
 
2014-03-21 09:18:59 PM
When people ask 'Why don't you vote?' and I tell them 'Because your vote doesn't really count for anything' - this is another example of why.
 
2014-03-21 09:21:43 PM

kukukupo: When people ask 'Why don't you vote?' and I tell them 'Because your vote doesn't really count for anything' - this is another example of why.


And nothing of value was lost.
 
2014-03-21 09:30:55 PM
This very well may be the best attempt to make Michigan fabulous.
 
2014-03-21 09:32:17 PM

cc_rider: FTFA:  "the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
Friedman, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, wasn't moved."

Bahahaha!

Even more sweet and delicious those conservative tears will be.


Regan: just another panty waist RINO.
 
2014-03-21 09:33:40 PM
Seriously, if the majority can't even take away Constitutional rights of the minority, why even call it democracy!
 
2014-03-21 09:39:29 PM

jaerik: Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it. His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans." He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.


That sends me into my Happy Place, yes it does.
 
2014-03-21 09:42:11 PM
I didn't realize Obama's March Madness bracket was supposed to be about gay marriage.
 
2014-03-21 09:44:20 PM

dv-ous: GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

I'm not saying this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, but this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.

NTTAWWT, of course.


I agree 100%.

That face also screams "Punch me" very loudly. I think it's the soul patch/chin fuzz combo that tops off this particular effect.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report